Denmark has committed to generating 50 percent of its electricity from wind …

Denmark has committed to generating 50 percent of its electricity from wind sources by the year 2020, by which time the country hopes to have reduced CO2 emissions by 34 percent compared to 1990 levels. This renewed commitment to wind forms the central pillar in an energy bill that commits to obtaining 35 percent of the country's energy from renewable sources by that time. And Denmark actively aims to lower energy consumption, with 2020 usage 12 percent lower than that of 2006.

"Denmark will once again be the global leader in the transition to green energy," said Martin Lidegaard, Denmark's Minister for Climate, Energy and Building. "This will prepare us for a future with increasing prices for oil and coal. Moreover, it will create some of the jobs that we need so desperately, now and in the coming years."

The bill passed with a near-unanimous 171 votes out of the parliament's 179 seats.

"Once again" is a telling choice of words from Lidegaard, but it raises a question: if not Denmark, what country was leading the pack with renewable energy prior to the bill's passing? Certainly, wind already makes up a higher proportionate of Denmark's energy mix than it does any other country's—21 percent as of 2010, with Portugal (18 percent) and Spain (16 percent) not far behind.

Indeed, Denmark tops the wind charts whichever metric you care to throw at it: installed capacity per person, per square kilometer, per unit of GDP—as of 2010 (PDF) at any rate.

But when it comes to the contribution made by all renewable sources of energy, Denmark fell into eighth place based on installed power in 2009, behind Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Estonia, and Romania. Even factoring in Denmark's aspirations for 2020 (according to the Renewables Global Status Report 2011 (PDF), published prior to this bill), the country would only be elevated to sixth place, assuming it meets its target of a 30 percent renewable energy share. (These figures are for the EU alone.)

EU renewables shares of final energy, 2005 and 2009, with targets for 2020

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century

But Denmark has only raised the bar by 5 percent of its total energy use, to 35 percent. Sweden met its target for a 50-percent renewable share in 2009, thanks to the gargantuan contribution made by the country's hydroelectric infrastructure. By what measure, then, does the new announcement return Denmark to the top of the league?

The short answer is, it doesn't. The government sees the 2020 targets as stepping stones to the end goal—100 percent of the country's energy to be supplied from renewable sources by 2050. But even that wouldn't leave it on top; Scotland is aiming for a 100-percent renewable energy contribution by 2020.

Wind has a tremendous role to play in Denmark's renewable grand expansion, with 1500MW of new offshore wind capacity due for completion by the 2020 deadline. A third installation, with 400MW of capacity, will be built at Horns Rev; while a 600MW farm will be built in the Baltic at Kriegers Flak (where hurricanes are mercifully absent). The latter has been described as the world's first offshore "supergrid," and will additionally provide electricity to Germany.

But it would be misleading to portray Denmark as a country putting all of its eggs into a windy basket. It isn't so much as placing a "price on carbon" as the OECD has recommended. Denmark seems to be making efforts (PDF) to ban it outright, phasing out coal power generation in favor of biomass energy and investing in geothermal energy.

At the smaller scale, Denmark is banning the installation of oil-fired and natural gas boilers in new buildings from 2013, and providing over $7.5 million to fund the conversion of domestic boilers to renewable equivalents. Further investment is being made available to industries that use renewable energy to fuel manufacture and the like, as well as for the promotion of CHP (combined heat and power) schemes.

The government also recognizes the need to modernize the grid to accommodate intermittent renewable sources (an oft-cited stumbling block for the rollout of renewable energy in the US), with an agreement being put in place with electricity distributors for remotely-readable "smart" electricity metering.

In the arena of transport, the government is making $12.5 million of subsidies available for electric vehicle recharging stations, and mandating that all fuel must be at least 10-percent biofuel by 2020. It has also committed to eliminating fossil fuels entirely from the island of Samsø, a proto-renewable energy community where 100 percent of electricity is already provided by wind power.

If you'll permit a West Wing reference, Denmark might be thought of as adopting one of President Bartlet's theories of economics and applying it to energy policy—at least partially. "Everybody's got a magic lever they want you to push. I studied economics all my life but in this job only a fool is ever certain. You don't push any one lever; you wanna push a little on them all." Denmark's certainly pulling all the levers—not a little, though. A lot.

James Holloway
James is a contributing science writer. He's a graduate of the Open University, with a B.Sc. in Technology and a Diploma in Design and Innovation. Twitter@jamesholloway

This is great and all, but how much is Denmark leaning on its neighbors for balancing and frequency control? New wind turbine controls can do some of this, but what does Denmark do when the wind is low? Do they have huge amounts of load control? Do they buy power from their neighbors? Any energy storage?

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

EDIT: Should mention, based on the installation details in the article

Uh, given that we are 100 times larger than Denmark, and benefit from the greatest economy of scale in the world, that says absolutely nothing good about us.

We spent $1 trillion/year on our military, while passing EPA regulations that allow inefficient, unfiltered, and dirty coal-fired plants to be "grandfathered" in and even expanded to meet future power requirements.

Denmark has committed to generating 50 percent of its electricity from wind sources by the year 2020, by which time the country hopes to have reduced CO2 emissions by 34 percent compared to 1990 levels. This renewed commitment to wind forms is the central pillar in an energy bill that commits to obtaining 35 percent of the country's energy from renewable sources by that time.

Tell me if I'm reading this wrong but this statement doesn't make sense to me. In the first part it looks to be saying 50% of all Denmark's electricity will be wind based by 2020 and then later on it only says 35% for renewable energies. Is it saying the 50% is wind energy's share of all renewable energy and the end goal is 35% total renewable by 2020? And then on top of that the chart shows Denmark's 2020 goal to be 30%, not 35%. So which is it, 30%, 35%, or 50%?

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

People bring this stupid "point" up in articles on other places the USA fails too, like broadband. As sonicmerlin points out, absolute comparisons are mostly worthless. Expenditures have to be normalized for differences in resources and capabilities, which America (GDP: around $15 trillion) has just a tiny bit more of then Denmark (GDP: ~$310 billion).

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

EDIT: Should mention, based on the installation details in the article

Uh, given that we are 100 times larger than Denmark, and benefit from the greatest economy of scale in the world, that says absolutely nothing good about us.

It may or may not. Not everything scales linearly. I wouldn't question that Denmark is more committed to wind power than the U.S. I just wanted to point out that we are also adding capacity in significant quantities.

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

The US also has about 60x as many people as Denmark, so that's not surprising at all. Denmark seems to be carrying out a whole number of other measures - like mandating more efficient boilers in houses - which are needed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Converting to carbon-free electricity generation is only one piece of the puzzle. We also have to increase efficiency, minimize the use of fossil fuels in transportation and reduce emissions from agriculture. If we are serious about averting major climate change, we have to begin implementing a whole series of aggressive measures now. I don't think these measures have to present a burden to ordinary people - increasing efficiency in homes, for example, will save money over the long run, and government can subsidize or finance the up-front costs.

On another note, I doubt any comparison between Swedish and Danish usage of renewable energy sources is relevant here. Sweden has long had substantial hydroelectric capacity installed, simply because it's a cheap, abundant energy source. Sweden is a large, sparsely populated country with large rivers flowing from the mountainous border with Norway to the Baltic Sea. Denmark doesn't have such low-hanging fruit to pluck.

"If you'll permit a West Wing reference," No, permission not granted. J. Holloway should have used the metaphor of pushing several levers a little instead of pushing one all the way, without the reference to a cancelled TV show with no connection to renewable power generation.

Anyways, with global warming and sea level rise, most of Denmark is going to be underwater anyways - take that Danes!

Denmark has committed to generating 50 percent of its electricity from wind sources by the year 2020, by which time the country hopes to have reduced CO2 emissions by 34 percent compared to 1990 levels. This renewed commitment to wind forms is the central pillar in an energy bill that commits to obtaining 35 percent of the country's energy from renewable sources by that time.

Tell me if I'm reading this wrong but this statement doesn't make sense to me. In the first part it looks to be saying 50% of all Denmark's electricity will be wind based by 2020 and then later on it only says 35% for renewable energies. Is it saying the 50% is wind energy's share of all renewable energy and the end goal is 35% total renewable by 2020? And then on top of that the chart shows Denmark's 2020 goal to be 30%, not 35%. So which is it, 30%, 35%, or 50%?

I understood it to mean 50% of electricity would be generated by wind sources. However, electricity only counts for a percentage of their total energy needs.

"In the first part it looks to be saying 50% of all Denmark's electricity will be wind based by 2020 and then later on it only says 35% for renewable energies."

That's right.

"Is it saying the 50% is wind energy's share of all renewable energy and the end goal is 35% total renewable by 2020?"

No.

"And then on top of that the chart shows Denmark's 2020 goal to be 30%, not 35%. So which is it, 30%, 35%, or 50%?"

The chart is from a the 2011 report Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. It shows Denmark's old targets which pre-date the bill. That caption could have been clearer. The purpose of its inclusion was more to show the installed renewable infrastructure as of 2009. But, so far as the article text goes, electricity specifically means electricity, and energy means specifically energy.

If ever there was a country ideally suited for offshore wind production (a small wealthy country that is almost all coastline jutting out into one of the windier parts of the world, tied into a massive grid even larger than the US that they can leverage for baseload and selling off overproduction) it's Denmark. The fact that they have been so quick and successful at capitalizing on it shouldn't be used as a criticism against anyone else, as their situation is fairly unique.

Wind is a no-brainer here in Denmark given our geography and climate. It also helps that the worlds largest wind turbine manufacturer is Danish of course. Wave also gets attention here... I think we're one of the few countries with any significant research into wave electricity generation, but it is still getting more talk than resources.

We trade significant amounts of energy and electricity with Sweden and Germany (both ways), but I don't know the numbers. We're a net exporter of oil and natural gas (3rd largest oilproducer in western Europe).Swedish electricity is mostly hydro and nuclear. German is probably coal and nuclear but I don't really know.

The electricity/energy figures have been confused in the debate here as well. It is important to remember that electricity is only a part of total energy consumption.

I don't think many people around here consider the plan very ambitious btw.

Nkp wrote:

AceRimmer wrote:

"The bill passed with a near-unanimous 171 votes out of the parliament's 179 seats."

As an American, I can say that Denmark clearly doesn't understand how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Indeed. Imagine the lack of choice you have as a voter, if you oppose this.

Around here we aren't restricted to voting on people and parties already in parliament.

Is there any kind of widespread opposition to these initiatives in Denmark? I was under the impression they were quite popular.

Not really. A country that is already one of the heaviest taxed in the world, by its very nature must be very tolerant to high and higher taxes. Combine that with a belief in authority, and most people believe that higher taxes and more government involvement means higher prosperity. Of course, the numbers show, that this initiative will lead to higher costs for the same product and essentially no benefits, other than happy politicians that can brag in international circles, hence lower growth and lower prosperity. Pollution will remain effectively unchanged.

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

EDIT: Should mention, based on the installation details in the article

Uh, given that we are 100 times larger than Denmark, and benefit from the greatest economy of scale in the world, that says absolutely nothing good about us.

We spent $1 trillion/year on our military, while passing EPA regulations that allow inefficient, unfiltered, and dirty coal-fired plants to be "grandfathered" in and even expanded to meet future power requirements.

There is more to decision making than simply environmental science. Economics play a huge roll in things as well. Any economist worth his/her salt doesn't support the military budget either.

Unless the government is going to chip in on the costs of upgrading these old plants its unreasonable to think that power companies should have to spend billions on plants built during a different mindset. Requiring new plants to be more efficient makes much more sense.

I guarantee most people who own a cars built in the 90's don't meet todays emission requirements. Should they be forced to run out and make upgrades to their vehicles so they can be compliant?

Idiotic, they can play when Norway has hude hydro capacity to store and release as then need. But taxpayers will pay that, its way better to just go nuclear.

What is idiotic?

Hydro is impossible here. The highest point is the top of the pylons on the Big Belt bridge... 254m above sea level. We could send someone up there with a bucket of water and let it drip on a turbine maybe?As far as rivers go, we don't really have any.

Nuclear 1) depends on fuel imports, 2) is insanely expensive for us compared to offshore wind, 3) has higher health and safety risks, 4) requires land which is at much more of a premium here than water and 5) is politically impossible in Denmark. Besides, while probably competitive from a CO2 emission perspective, it isn't actually renewable energy.

Nkp wrote:

neuromaster wrote:

Is there any kind of widespread opposition to these initiatives in Denmark? I was under the impression they were quite popular.

Not really. A country that is already one of the heaviest taxed in the world, by its very nature must be very tolerant to high and higher taxes. Combine that with a belief in authority, and most people believe that higher taxes and more government involvement means higher prosperity. Of course, the numbers show, that this initiative will lead to higher costs for the same product and essentially no benefits, other than happy politicians that can brag in international circles, hence lower growth and lower prosperity. Pollution will remain effectively unchanged.

I'm actually not a fan of the socialdemocratic wellfare state, but I'd take it over what they have in say the US or Germany any day - and so would most Danes.And as far as support for this specific initiative goes, there is widespread support for a move towards renewable energy. Most people leave the specifics to experts and politicians who (at least the second group) unfortunately have a tendency to lie to your face any chance they get.

Is there any kind of widespread opposition to these initiatives in Denmark? I was under the impression they were quite popular.

Not really. A country that is already one of the heaviest taxed in the world, by its very nature must be very tolerant to high and higher taxes. Combine that with a belief in authority, and most people believe that higher taxes and more government involvement means higher prosperity. Of course, the numbers show, that this initiative will lead to higher costs for the same product and essentially no benefits, other than happy politicians that can brag in international circles, hence lower growth and lower prosperity. Pollution will remain effectively unchanged.

Don't worry. I have a pickup truck with nine barrels of industrial waste to dump tonight. That'll show 'em! All that effort for nothing.

Is there any kind of widespread opposition to these initiatives in Denmark? I was under the impression they were quite popular.

Not really. A country that is already one of the heaviest taxed in the world, by its very nature must be very tolerant to high and higher taxes. Combine that with a belief in authority, and most people believe that higher taxes and more government involvement means higher prosperity. Of course, the numbers show, that this initiative will lead to higher costs for the same product and essentially no benefits, other than happy politicians that can brag in international circles, hence lower growth and lower prosperity. Pollution will remain effectively unchanged.

So when they're running on 100% renewable power, pollution will still be effectively unchanged? You might as well be telling us that the sky is green.

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

EDIT: Should mention, based on the installation details in the article

Uh, given that we are 100 times larger than Denmark, and benefit from the greatest economy of scale in the world, that says absolutely nothing good about us.

We spent $1 trillion/year on our military, while passing EPA regulations that allow inefficient, unfiltered, and dirty coal-fired plants to be "grandfathered" in and even expanded to meet future power requirements.

There is more to decision making than simply environmental science. Economics play a huge roll in things as well. Any economist worth his/her salt doesn't support the military budget either.

Unless the government is going to chip in on the costs of upgrading these old plants its unreasonable to think that power companies should have to spend billions on plants built during a different mindset. Requiring new plants to be more efficient makes much more sense.

I guarantee most people who own a cars built in the 90's don't meet todays emission requirements. Should they be forced to run out and make upgrades to their vehicles so they can be compliant?

There's nothing unreasonable about requiring extremely profitable utilities, whether private or public, to invest money into upgrading their plants to the modern day technologies. Not only does it benefit the environment, the increased investment creates numerous engineering jobs. Basically money goes to labor who builds things rather than shareholders who sit around collecting rent.

Before anyone starts ripping on the United States, I just want to note that we've installed more wind capacity last year alone than Denmark plans to install by 2020 - several times over.

EDIT: Should mention, based on the installation details in the article

Uh, given that we are 100 times larger than Denmark, and benefit from the greatest economy of scale in the world, that says absolutely nothing good about us.

It may or may not. Not everything scales linearly. I wouldn't question that Denmark is more committed to wind power than the U.S. I just wanted to point out that we are also adding capacity in significant quantities.

You're right, it doesn't scale linearly. It scales *exponentially*. We spend more money on our military than the next 17 countries combined, have the lowest taxes of any developed world, and allow our wealthiest citizens to get away with a 15% capital gains rate. Yet somehow we haven't gone bankrupt (yet). We have so much money it's disgusting, and yet we pretend like our backs are against the wall.

Even as our GDP/capita doubled over the last 30 years, all extra wealth has gone to the wealthiest 1%, and more and more federal tax money is diverted to the military. 20 years ago, when the USSR fell, our military budget was under $200 billion/year. Now it's $700 billion/year, not including the wars. Imagine how quickly we could convert to renewables if we instead spent that $500 billion/year constructing wind farms, desert solar plants, and nuclear plants. We'd have converted 100% in 10 years, the same way we went to the moon in 10 years.